dt3_search

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already provide readOnly and idempotent hints. The description adds that it returns metadata only and that pagination follows native result order, which are useful behavioral details. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact, with no redundant words. It packs essential information—query syntax example, metadata-only scope, and pagination behavior—into a single sentence, ensuring quick comprehension.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has six parameters and an output schema, the description provides little context for most parameters and does not clarify expected input formats or edge cases. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the lack of parameter guidance makes the tool hard to use correctly without external knowledge.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is low (only group_uuid is described) and the description does not explain limit, offset, recursive, or database_uuid. While query syntax is mentioned with examples, the meaning and interplay of the pagination and scoping parameters remain unclear, leaving users to guess.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (search) on a specific resource (one permitted database) using native DEVONthink query syntax. It provides concrete examples and distinguishes from content retrieval by saying metadata only, making the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly directs users to use read_text for content, indicating when not to use this tool. It also mentions pagination behavior, which helps with paginated queries. However, it does not contrast with other search/list tools like dt3_list_group or dt3_get_record, leaving some ambiguity.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.